"Jessica Valenti, who runs and blogs on feministing.com, is standing at an angle with a slight arch in her back, making the focal point of the photo, whether intentional or not, her breasts." This is a family blog, but what she said.
« LeBron Versus Kobe | Main | Debate Wrap-Up »
Stay Classy, Politico
05 Jun 2007 08:51 pm
Comments (32)
Politico's Ryan Grim makes the focal point of the discussion, whether intentional or not, his asshole.
What's the problem with that? It's 100% factually correct, and I can't imagine how you'd write a profile of Althouse without mentioning that dust-up.
John, do you know what a fact is?
Well, John, I think the point is that the sentence is clearly dishonest and slanderous. The construction "Valenti .. is .. making the focal point of the photo, whether intentional or not, her breasts." cannot be read in a way that takes the intentionality disclaimer seriously. Also, it is unclear whose intentions might be innocent, Ms. Valenti's or the photographer's.
One could re-write the sentence to better present the disclaimer (by, for example, putting the disclaimer before the alleged result and phrasing the result in the passive rather than the active voice). Or one could write that Althouse accused Valenti of standing in such a way as to achieve a particular effect.
The author of this Politico piece stated, as known facts, that (1) Ms. Valenti's breasts were the centerpiece and highlight of the photo and (2) that she is standing in such a way as to achieve this effect. Meanwhile, the author strongly implied that Ms. Valenti was deliberately seeking this effect.
Finally, even if all of Ms. Althouse's accusations were completely true, they would still fail to be particularily interesting, and would say a lot more about Althouse than about Valenti, or especially about Clinton. The only reason this is of the slightest interest is that Althouse's deranged performance on Bloggingheads was entertaining.
What's the problem with that? It's 100% factually correct, and I can't imagine how you'd write a profile of Althouse without mentioning that dust-up.
Well, I'd imagine from her conduct w/Ms. Franke-Ruta that Professor Althouse would disagree with you there.
You could also wonder why you'd write a profile of Althouse at all.
Then, of course, there's the fact that it's 100% factually incorrect. Althouse's analysis of the photo is laughable, her usage of it for rhetorical point scoring ridiculous, and her attitude towards the whole affair emblematic of why Althouse is one of the silliest people I've ever had the displeasure of spending time reading.
Where is this pic?
It's 100% factually correct
"Facts" taken in toto constitute "reality". And, to cop a phrase, reality has a well-known liberal bias. The Republican operatives who founded and operate The Politico have graciously taken it upon themselves to correct this unfortunate state of events. Hence the highlighting of Althouse and her anti-Kerry article as a "killer post". Fox-News-Lite, how I tire of you.
And the rise of the Norma Desmond of Wisconsin continues...
Thanks.
It looks like a normal pose. Someone has breast envy.
Wow. That was fun on Colbert.
I'm not defending Althouse -- certainly not her bloggingheads outburst (in which she started screaming when Garance Franke-Ruta described that blog fight in utterly neutral terms). I'm just saying that if people can really look at that photo and not immediately notice that there's a pair of breasts right at the center of it (and directly in front of Bill Clinton, too), I find that really odd.
I'll ask my wife if that's what she immediately notices, John. Or, by "people," did you mean "horny male people"?
I'm just saying that if people can really look at that photo and not immediately notice that there's a pair of breasts right at the center of it (and directly in front of Bill Clinton, too), I find that really odd.
The obvious implication of the Politico piece is that Jessica Valenti was trying to draw attention to her breasts. There's absolutely no evidence of that. She didn't pose the people or take the photo. She's standing perfectly normally. She just happens to have breasts, because she happens to be a woman and that's how that goes. Notice them, don't notice them, but don't try to make it her responsibility to worry about it. Jesus.
There is a hypocrisy among feminists in that they often lament the "objectification" of women and yet remain content to use their looks to get ahead. 15 years ago, when Naomi Wolf was younger, thinner, and strikingly pretty, I remember her getting called on this shit on a TV talk show.
There is a hypocrisy among feminists in that they often lament the "objectification" of women and yet remain content to use their looks to get ahead.
Harry, writing that sentence is the blogging equivalent of going down on all fours and begging to be beaten with a chain.
Remind me again... are we supposed to have a problem with Politico, or Althouse, or both of them? If we're going to have a Two Minutes Hate, I need to know which face is on the screen.
It just proves that he deserves to get beaten. It's the sort of statement only a fuckwit would make, especially without any proof Valenti has used her looks to "get ahead" in the blogging world. She certainly doesn't make a caricature of herself like certain types on the other side.
if people can really look at that photo and not immediately notice that there's a pair of breasts right at the center of it
By my count, there are 5 pairs of female breasts in the picture--and the implicit heteronormative assumption of you comment seems to be that guys' breasts don't count, but still . . .
My mother said of a rather sad sack type that "he doesn't have enough to think about."
Look, any straight guy who doesn't admit that the first thing he sees in that picture is the hot chick in the front row is lying. But that's our problem, not hers. She's not doing anything to call attention to herself. She's just being hot. And yes, it's sort of funny that Bill Clinton happens to me standing behind her, but he's not looking down at her ass or anything.
Matt, your post ought to have Ryan Grim's name in it, to help people Googling him find the highlights of his ouevre.
Well, that was an interesting slip. Grim's name should be out there, but not like that.
any straight guy who doesn't admit that the first thing he sees in that picture is the hot chick in the front row is lying.
Possibly true. But still, the first thing you notice is her face, not her breasts.
Women use looks to get ahead?
Just check presidential candidates. Not all of them are tall, or handsome, but can a serious candidate be neither? How serious candidate Dennis Kucinich would be, say, would he adopt the rhetoric of Barack Obama?
Back to the picture: most probably, it was a photographer who positioned the folks, and Miss Valenti in the center, and she, slut that she is, did not slouch, and neither did she sport a voluminous black sweater. Making THAT a centerpiece of a column/blog diary definitely told a lot about Dr. Althaus. Continuing the dispute the way she did told volumes.
We're doing this one again? Really? It wasn't stupid enough the first time?
For the record, too many steves is correct. If you're the photographer, don't you put the pretty girl in the middle too? And punishing Jessica for being attractive is just Althouse being her typical...ah what word can I use here...vapid self.
I think a lot of men will notice Valenti quickly... and possibly women too. She's young and attractive in a group of not so young, not so attractive people. At the same time, I think Althouse is off her rocker. Have you seen how a model poses? Valenti is standing upright and with good posture, but if she really wanted to emphasize her breasts she would hold her shoulders further back, her chest a little higher and her chin up somewhat. Claiming women are using their body to get ahead because they put their best decent foot forward is ridiculous. As a male engineer I hardly use my body to get ahead, but when I dress myself, I do so in a flattering way. Its just sensible. But Althouse found this photo, noticed Valenti, and somehow thought it was significant enough to comment on. Either she is really committed to her cause of undermining feminists or she is deranged (and possibly both).
Despite the gigabytes of wasted commentary on the Jessica Valenti breast controversy, the most important detail is still unexamined.
The thing nobody seems to realize about the infamous photo is that the one which is widely linked online ISN'T THE ONE SHE WAS POSING FOR.
If you look at the photo,
http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=243422784&size=m
you'll see that everyone's eyes are directed AT ANOTHER CAMERA.
If you imagine looking from the main camera's point of view, she is BEING POLITE and arching out of the way of the President.
This shot is taken from a secondary camera. Maybe the primary one didn't turn out well, or wasn't digital - who knows.
I think the person responsible for The Politico's profile of Althouse should apologize for continuing to make implications about a woman who clearly did nothing improper.
Milton: Jesus. I've seen this picture WAY too many times and never noticed there was a second shooter. You're right. Thus, the angle. Though I'd be careful with the use of the word "arch."
And I think we'll see an apology from the Politico about the same time as we see one from Althouse. That is to say never.
Ah, the camera in the grassy knoll angle. (Get your minds out of the gutter people).
Althouse -- even batshit insane people can become tenured law school faculty. I guess that's heartening. If you're batshit crazy.
Comments closed June 19, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
This is a family blog
Sellout.
Posted by ogged | June 5, 2007 10:09 PM